search for: 052472

...ing all fields compulsory). The verifier probably needs to know about this constraint, something I haven't addressed yet. Should our assertions be stricter or must we not assert at all? (The code is also up on Github [2]). Thanks! [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html [2] https://github.com/sanjoy/llvm/tree/parallel-md -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Create-a-class-structure-represent-the-various-kinds.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25207 byt...

...king all fields compulsory). The verifier probably needs to know about this constraint, something I haven't addressed yet. Should our assertions be stricter or must we not assert at all? (The code is also up on Github [2]). Thanks! [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html [2] https://github.com/sanjoy/llvm/tree/parallel-md -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Create-a-class-structure-represent-the-various-kinds.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25207 byte...

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes: Hi Hal, > As you may know, this is the third such proposal over the past two > months, one by me > (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html) This link seems to be broken. I missed your earlier proposal and would like to read it. As with this proposal, I fear any direct parallelization support in LLVM is going to take us out of the "low level" feature of LLVM which is a huge strength. > and the other, based somewha...

...` @llvm.parallel_map(2, task_closure, task_priv) void task_closure(i32 index, i8* private) { if (index == 0) { more_code_may_contain_more_tasks } else { block } } ``` Parallel loops are basically `parallel_map`s. Thoughts? [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com

Hal, Thank you for the reply! > As you may know, this is the third such proposal over the past two > months, one by me > (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html) > and the other, based somewhat on mine, by Sanjoy > (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053798.html) Yes, I was aware of your proposal. I hesitated to make any comments or criticism -- as I am, obviously, biased. In my opinion, two most important differences be...

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:22:35 +0300 Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote: > On 08/13/2012 10:54 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > I had thought about uses for shared-memory OpenCL implementations, > > but I don't know enough about the use cases to make a specific > > proposal. Is your metadata documented anywhere? > > It is now a quick "brute

...2012 at 5:15 AM, <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> writes: > > Hi Hal, > >> As you may know, this is the third such proposal over the past two >> months, one by me >> (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html) > > This link seems to be broken. I missed your earlier proposal and would > like to read it. As with this proposal, I fear any direct > parallelization support in LLVM is going to take us out of the "low > level" feature of LLVM which is a huge strength. > >&...

...` @llvm.parallel_map(2, task_closure, task_priv) void task_closure(i32 index, i8* private) { if (index == 0) { more_code_may_contain_more_tasks } else { block } } ``` Parallel loops are basically `parallel_map`s. Thoughts? [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Andrey, I am very glad to see that you're interested in working on this! I have a few comments: As you may know, this is the third such proposal over the past two months, one by me (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html) and the other, based somewhat on mine, by Sanjoy (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053798.html) In order for your proposal to work well, there will be a lot of infrastructure work required (more than with my proposal); many passes will need to be made explicitly awar...

...hould drop non-self-consistent sets of metadata entries (as these might have resulted from the actions of non-parallelization-aware transformation passes. -Hal > > (The code is also up on Github [2]). > > Thanks! > > [1] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052472.html > [2] https://github.com/sanjoy/llvm/tree/parallel-md > > > -- > Sanjoy Das > http://playingwithpointers.com -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory

Hi All, We'd like to make a proposal for OpenMP representation in LLVM IR. Our goal is to reach an agreement in the community on a simple, complete and extensible representation of OpenMP language constructs in LLVM IR. Hopefully, this would serve as a common ground and would enable further development of OpenMP support both in Clang and LLVM compiler toolchain. We seek feedback on the